Mac Pro's lessons learned will trickle down to all 'Pro' products, says project lead

245678

Comments

  • Reply 21 of 158
    lkrupplkrupp Posts: 7,162member

    cynegils said:
    sflocal said:

    cynegils said:
    Lets hope that one of those lessons is not "Pricing will start at cost X eleventybillion!"
    Stop being so overdramatic.  The Mac Pro is priced similarly to WinTel counterparts of EXACT specs and the monitor is far cheaper than the competitors reference-level monitors.  Funny how you folks don't complain about the prices of those monitors.
    Not at all dramatic. The top Mac has always been a product within the reach of many. Apple has now redefined that, to say that the top Mac will be a product for <0.01% of the Mac using population. With a base price of at least $12K for all parts needed, Apple is essentially giving the finger to the loyal Apple base that was waiting for a new Mac Pro. I'm sure some people need a machine that can drive six $5000 monitors at once, and need to see 1600 nits or whatever "extreme" other nonsense Apple is hyping up to justify the exorbitant price, but what about others that needed a powerful and expandable computer that couldn't care less about a million to 1 contrast (that is unlikely to be imporant to anyone)? An absolutely not. The $6000 charged for the lowest 3.5ghz 8-core chip and accessories, is obscenely above parts and labor. Apple is going the way of those whack job Hi-Fi audio companies that sell cables for $3000 a foot.
    All you are doing here is displaying your ignorance for all to see. You have no idea what high end work stations and monitors cost.  A Sony 31” 4K HRD reference display lists for $30,000.00. The 32” 6K XDR Apple monitor will sell for $5000.00. What you were hoping for was a cheap Mac Pro with slots and a $599.00 monitor like olden days of yore. You ain’t gonna get it, boopsy, so time to leave the platform and seek the object of your desire elsewhere.
    roundaboutnowcornchipStrangeDays80s_Apple_GuymacplusplusAppleExposedwatto_cobra
  • Reply 22 of 158
    Mike WuertheleMike Wuerthele Posts: 4,650administrator
    donjuan said:
    We do not know yet if all the motherboards will be the same. I doubt the low end model will have 12 ram slots.
    We have been told that there is only one motherboard across the line.
    cornchipMisterKit1STnTENDERBITSAppleExposeddysamoriawatto_cobra
  • Reply 23 of 158
    sflocal said:

    cynegils said:
    Lets hope that one of those lessons is not "Pricing will start at cost X eleventybillion!"
    Stop being so overdramatic.  The Mac Pro is priced similarly to WinTel counterparts of EXACT specs and the monitor is far cheaper than the competitors reference-level monitors.  Funny how you folks don't complain about the prices of those monitors.
    We do not need Broadcast quality monitors first of all. You do not know if the WinTel counterparts had the same specs. All Ternus said was one priced at $8,000. No one knew the specs. Why did the iMac Pro's basic configuration have a 1TB SSD and the Mac Pro starts at 256 GB. That is being very stingy despite the high cost! Comparing that Studio Display to a Sony BVM is a bit absurd. A $999 monitor stand is just as absurd. No one asked for a 6K monitor anyway. How is it the 27" iMac has a 5K monitor without the "Apple Tax". Apple is just damn Greedy.  
    cynegilsdysamoria
  • Reply 24 of 158

    Can I get a Mac Pro with that wonderful case, but inside is only a Mac Mini hanging in the center?  :smiley: 

    cornchipwatto_cobra
  • Reply 25 of 158
    canukstormcanukstorm Posts: 1,953member
    "My only criticism, and what kept that home run from being a grand slam, is (1) the puny storage on the base model Pro (2) pricing the monitor stand separately (3) the misstep in announcing the price of the monitor separately."

    I agree. Especially considering that the base-model iMac Pro comes with 1TB SSD storage.  This should have been the storage on the base-model Mac Pro.  Other than that, great computer and display.
    dysamoriawatto_cobra
  • Reply 26 of 158
    ireland said:

    Imo the price of the stand could have been a non-issue in the press if Apple had simply announced a $5999 monitor with the bonus of an $800 discount for choosing a VESA adapter instead of the stand.  Exact same pricing, exact same components, completely different emphasis.  Putting the spotlight on the stand was not good, but the overall presentation was the best WWDC opening Apple has done in a long time.  They actually got me excited for iPads again.  
    Why do you care so much what people think of Apple? The stand is overpriced. 

    However, if Apple really wanted to be clever and hide the price they are charging for the stand they should have priced the monitor $500 higher, and given I’d bet the vast majority of folks will want to stand, the stand should have been default configuration, with options for additional VESA for $200 additional, or VESA-only for $399 discount. The press would infer the stand at $599 and that would be that.

    I wouldn’t worry about your precious darling, though, many customers of theirs will find the stand attractive precisely because of it expense. Call it perverse inferiority complex.
    WTH are you talking about?  I rendered my opinion about WWDC and the MP and monitor.  I couldn't care less about what people think of Apple.  You call Apple my precious darling.  That's funny, incorrect and ironic since a fair number of forum members consider me an Apple hater.  There are a number of ways Apple could have mitigated the fallout from the "Standgate".  Your idea is one of them, but not a good one imo.  I like mine better since it implies no cost for the stand and a discount for the VESA adapter, where yours still assigns an additional cost to the stand.  It invites discussion about cost where there needn't be any.
    watto_cobra
  • Reply 27 of 158
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 8,009member
    cynegils said:
    sflocal said:

    cynegils said:
    Lets hope that one of those lessons is not "Pricing will start at cost X eleventybillion!"
    Stop being so overdramatic.  The Mac Pro is priced similarly to WinTel counterparts of EXACT specs and the monitor is far cheaper than the competitors reference-level monitors.  Funny how you folks don't complain about the prices of those monitors.
    Not at all dramatic. The top Mac has always been a product within the reach of many. Apple has now redefined that, to say that the top Mac will be a product for <0.01% of the Mac using population. With a base price of at least $12K for all parts needed, Apple is essentially giving the finger to the loyal Apple base that was waiting for a new Mac Pro. I'm sure some people need a machine that can drive six $5000 monitors at once, and need to see 1600 nits or whatever "extreme" other nonsense Apple is hyping up to justify the exorbitant price, but what about others that needed a powerful and expandable computer that couldn't care less about a million to 1 contrast (that is unlikely to be imporant to anyone)? An absolutely not. The $6000 charged for the lowest 3.5ghz 8-core chip and accessories, is obscenely above parts and labor. Apple is going the way of those whack job Hi-Fi audio companies that sell cables for $3000 a foot.
    What an absurd metric of entitlement — whether or not you can afford the top-tier offering! Nuts. When Ford Motor Co. was a younger company the top offering was affordable to many. Now they make many different models across a spread, and the biggest Ford trucks are not affordable to many. Does that mean they shouldn’t make or sell them? Of course not! That’s absurd. Your metric here is flawed. 

    The rest of your post is whining, and ignorant whining at that. Yes, pros in the business care about sustained nits. It’s not extreme nonsense.

    This machine isn’t for you. And that’s OK. It’s not a hobbyist tinkerer machine. 
    roundaboutnowlkruppmike1fastasleepmacplusplusAppleExposedJWSCmacxpresswatto_cobra
  • Reply 28 of 158
    PylonsPylons Posts: 21member
    Let’s just hope this Pro Workflow Group has been a vocal critic of the Touch Bar, so that we soon can get to choose MacBook Pros without it.
    I’d be very happy to buy one, but can’t accept that Apple is still trying to sell me the two year old 13-inch model, with older butterfly keyboard and only dual core CPU.
    dysamoriakestral
  • Reply 29 of 158
    StrangeDaysStrangeDays Posts: 8,009member
    sflocal said:

    cynegils said:
    Lets hope that one of those lessons is not "Pricing will start at cost X eleventybillion!"
    Stop being so overdramatic.  The Mac Pro is priced similarly to WinTel counterparts of EXACT specs and the monitor is far cheaper than the competitors reference-level monitors.  Funny how you folks don't complain about the prices of those monitors.
    We do not need Broadcast quality monitors first of all. You do not know if the WinTel counterparts had the same specs. All Ternus said was one priced at $8,000. No one knew the specs. Why did the iMac Pro's basic configuration have a 1TB SSD and the Mac Pro starts at 256 GB. That is being very stingy despite the high cost! Comparing that Studio Display to a Sony BVM is a bit absurd. A $999 monitor stand is just as absurd. No one asked for a 6K monitor anyway. How is it the 27" iMac has a 5K monitor without the "Apple Tax". Apple is just damn Greedy.  
    Nope. This product just isn’t for you. If you don’t know why this monitor is special, you don’t need it. 
    roundaboutnowmike1CurtisHightrandominternetpersonfastasleepmacplusplusAppleExposedJWSCwatto_cobra
  • Reply 30 of 158
    lkrupp said:
    ireland said:
    Anyone like to guesstimate what a fully speced-out new Mac Pro with display will cost?
    $50K at least. The 28 core Xenon CPU is $15,000.00 just by itself on Amazon. Pixar, Lucasfilm, Industrial Light and Magic and others will be buying truckloads of these machines. 
    The 28 core Xeon-W with the requisite memory capacity lists at about $8000.00 — Apple seems to be using an as-yet unreleased edition of this, so somewhat more ... But yes, the full compliment of RAM will be god-only-knows how much. $50K seems a good guess.
    fastasleepwatto_cobra
  • Reply 31 of 158
    cynegilscynegils Posts: 8member
    lkrupp said:
    All you are doing here is displaying your ignorance for all to see. You have no idea what high end work stations and monitors cost.  A Sony 31” 4K HRD reference display lists for $30,000.00. The 32” 6K XDR Apple monitor will sell for $5000.00. What you were hoping for was a cheap Mac Pro with slots and a $599.00 monitor like olden days of yore. You ain’t gonna get it, boopsy, so time to leave the platform and seek the object of your desire elsewhere.
    So then Apple decides that the only monitor they will sell is a Broadcast quality beast that a only a vanishingly small number of people will use? Do no other Apple users need monitors? Do no other Apple users need an expandable chassis? Do no other Apple users need a powerful but affordable machine? It is insanity, and most likely a plot to build itself as a luxury brand. Like a Montblanc or Versace for computers, and luxury brands as we all know do remarkably well.

    $12,000 for the LOWEST Mac Pro model represents $10,110.00 in 2008 dollars. In 2008 I bought the TOP of the Mac Pro models (3.3ghz 6-core, so not hugely inferior) with ALL bells and whistles for $4900 including the awesome 30inch Apple Cinema HD display that I'm currently using. All this razzle dazzle that Apple is currently trying to sell you and that you are standing there gawping at, is mostly useless crap, unequivocably intended to justify this ridiculous price. 
    dysamoriakestralmuthuk_vanalingam
  • Reply 32 of 158
    canukstormcanukstorm Posts: 1,953member
    sflocal said:

    cynegils said:
    Lets hope that one of those lessons is not "Pricing will start at cost X eleventybillion!"
    Stop being so overdramatic.  The Mac Pro is priced similarly to WinTel counterparts of EXACT specs and the monitor is far cheaper than the competitors reference-level monitors.  Funny how you folks don't complain about the prices of those monitors.
    We do not need Broadcast quality monitors first of all. You do not know if the WinTel counterparts had the same specs. All Ternus said was one priced at $8,000. No one knew the specs. Why did the iMac Pro's basic configuration have a 1TB SSD and the Mac Pro starts at 256 GB. That is being very stingy despite the high cost! Comparing that Studio Display to a Sony BVM is a bit absurd. A $999 monitor stand is just as absurd. No one asked for a 6K monitor anyway. How is it the 27" iMac has a 5K monitor without the "Apple Tax". Apple is just damn Greedy.  
    Nope. This product just isn’t for you. If you don’t know why this monitor is special, you don’t need it. 
    I do agree with @jumpcutter ; that a base storage amount of 256GB on the base-model Mac Pro isn't justified especially considering that the base-model iMac Pro comes with 1TB SSD.  Given its target market, 1TB SSD should be standard on the new Mac Pro.  Other than that, I have no issue with the new hardware announced.
  • Reply 33 of 158
    I think the Pro Workflow Team is going to turn out to be one of the best ideas Apple has had in a long time.  It's sort of a wonder why they didn't have them before.  The new Mac Pro, though obviously not for me, seems to be a damn good machine.  I said the other day Apple hit one out of the park with the Pro and the monitor.  That was just my first impression.  A couple of days worth of reflection and I still think they hit one out of the park.  A home run.  My only criticism, and what kept that home run from being a grand slam, is (1) the puny storage on the base model Pro (2) pricing the monitor stand separately (3) the misstep in announcing the price of the monitor separately.

    Imo the price of the stand could have been a non-issue in the press if Apple had simply announced a $5999 monitor with the bonus of an $800 discount for choosing a VESA adapter instead of the stand.  Exact same pricing, exact same components, completely different emphasis.  Putting the spotlight on the stand was not good, but the overall presentation was the best WWDC opening Apple has done in a long time.  They actually got me excited for iPads again.  
    (1) IMO, a bare minimum base makes sense, now that components can be swapped out by end users. Anyone in the market for a higher-spec Pro might be able to save a few bucks by getting the base model and installing their own drive and memory to get to the higher spec if they have the time and inclination to do so. (Not sure what this does to warranty though).

    I kinda agree with (2) and (3).
    Nah, we disagree there.  That is literally cellphone levels of storage (amounts not types)... and not even top tier levels.  Not a good look on a $2K MBP.  Terrible look on a $6K MP imo.  I'd assume anyone buying one of these is going to be adding "goo gobs" ← technical term - of storage like the TB's that Promise is going to have on offer.  So that small amount that comes with the MP isn't really going to be a big consideration.  It's the perception that I'm talking about.  It looks "money grabby" ← another technical term -coming from Apple, who already has a reputation for being stingy with storage and overcharging for any storage beyond the minimum.  It's like they said, "Let's make the base model's storage so anemic that no one would go for it.  We'll charge out the "ying yang" ← yet another technical term (yes, yes, yes, I know the principles are yin and yang but the technical term is ying) - for the next level of storage and above."  Now we all know Apple didn't do that, but that's the vibe that level of storage gives off.  Other's probably feel differently.
  • Reply 34 of 158
    danvmdanvm Posts: 761member
    cynegils said:
    Lets hope that one of those lessons is not "Pricing will start at cost X eleventybillion!"
    When Intel charges $15k for the 28 core Xeon what do you expect? Just one more reason Apple will sooner-rather-than-later ditch Intel for AMD.

    And no, they aren't going ARM people. Just like they aren't building a competing GPGPU--the Afterburner is that secret GPU project from Florida.
    The Mac Pro uses a Xeon W series, designed for single socket workstations.  The current Intel Xeon W-3175X cost around $3000, very far of the $15K you mention.  If you move to the Xeon Platinum, specifically the 8280, it goes close to the USD$18K.  You are going to see this kind of processor in dual-socket workstations, like the HP Z-840.  
    fastasleep
  • Reply 35 of 158
    danvmdanvm Posts: 761member
    lkrupp said:
    ireland said:
    Anyone like to guesstimate what a fully speced-out new Mac Pro with display will cost?
    $50K at least. The 28 core Xenon CPU is $15,000.00 just by itself on Amazon. Pixar, Lucasfilm, Industrial Light and Magic and others will be buying truckloads of these machines. 
    The current 28-core Xeon W series is close to $3K, not $15K.  The other 28-core processor is the Xeon Platinum 8280, and it goes to $17K, but the Mac Pro don't have that option, considering is a single socket workstation.  You'll have to move to a HP Z 840, since it's a dual socket workstation. 
    fastasleepkestral
  • Reply 36 of 158
    entropysentropys Posts: 1,757member
    sflocal said:

    cynegils said:
    Lets hope that one of those lessons is not "Pricing will start at cost X eleventybillion!"
    Stop being so overdramatic.  The Mac Pro is priced similarly to WinTel counterparts of EXACT specs and the monitor is far cheaper than the competitors reference-level monitors.  Funny how you folks don't complain about the prices of those monitors.
    We do not need Broadcast quality monitors first of all. You do not know if the WinTel counterparts had the same specs. All Ternus said was one priced at $8,000. No one knew the specs. Why did the iMac Pro's basic configuration have a 1TB SSD and the Mac Pro starts at 256 GB. That is being very stingy despite the high cost! Comparing that Studio Display to a Sony BVM is a bit absurd. A $999 monitor stand is just as absurd. No one asked for a 6K monitor anyway. How is it the 27" iMac has a 5K monitor without the "Apple Tax". Apple is just damn Greedy.  
    Nope. This product just isn’t for you. If you don’t know why this monitor is special, you don’t need it. 
    I do agree with @jumpcutter ; that a base storage amount of 256GB on the base-model Mac Pro isn't justified especially considering that the base-model iMac Pro comes with 1TB SSD.  Given its target market, 1TB SSD should be standard on the new Mac Pro.  Other than that, I have no issue with the new hardware announced.
    The storage is just enough for the OS and the target apps. It is clearly user upgradable for those that want more. But I suspect the people actually buying this would not use internal storage for their very large content anyway. So for this particular”ar product it is probably right. It is not right for a nonuser upgradable iMac with a very different use case.
    CurtisHightrandominternetpersonmacguimacplusplusAppleExposedmacxpressStrangeDaysroundaboutnow
  • Reply 37 of 158
    entropysentropys Posts: 1,757member
    What I want to trickledown is user upgradable storage and ram in iMacs and MBPs.
    dysamorialorin schultz
  • Reply 38 of 158
    hypoluxahypoluxa Posts: 657member
    cynegils said:
    Lets hope that one of those lessons is not "Pricing will start at cost X eleventybillion!"
    When Intel charges $15k for the 28 core Xeon what do you expect? Just one more reason Apple will sooner-rather-than-later ditch Intel for AMD.

    And no, they aren't going ARM people. Just like they aren't building a competing GPGPU--the Afterburner is that secret GPU project from Florida.
    Ummm, I'm pretty sure they will. The writing is kinda on the wall for ARM chips in the near future for the Macs. Project catalyst is the first step. They've migrated before, and will do it again.
  • Reply 39 of 158
    mike1mike1 Posts: 1,900member
    sflocal said:

    cynegils said:
    Lets hope that one of those lessons is not "Pricing will start at cost X eleventybillion!"
    Stop being so overdramatic.  The Mac Pro is priced similarly to WinTel counterparts of EXACT specs and the monitor is far cheaper than the competitors reference-level monitors.  Funny how you folks don't complain about the prices of those monitors.
    That's because they never knew reference monitors at those price points exist. Just what they see at Best Buy and Amazon.
    CurtisHightAppleExposedJWSCStrangeDaysroundaboutnow
  • Reply 40 of 158
    karmadavekarmadave Posts: 315member
    The 'closed' vs. 'open' Mac debate goes back as far as the 1980's. The new Mac Pro is NOT the upgradable machine for the average consumer. It's the overpriced and under-spec'd (in my opinion) machine for Mac-centric video and audio professionals. It's really a niche product... 
    kestral
Sign In or Register to comment.